Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

her text as she intended, and as she probably would have done, and certainly ought to have done, had her life been spared. We infer this, in the first place, from the negligence manifested in the use, sometimes of the old English termination of verbs in the third person singular, and sometimes of the modern termination; a negligence which runs through the whole of the poem, and gives us about equal instances of each form. Thus Ch. i. 16, the fire of God has fallen from heaven:' while in Ch. ii. 5, it runs all that a man hath he will give for his life.' So Ch. v. 2.

For the stupid rich Man anger kills,
And the silly poor one dies of envy.'

Yet in V. 11. of the same chapter it occurs,
• Who setteth the lowly on high,

And exalteth the mourners in safety.'

[ocr errors]

We have another proof of the truth of this assertion, in the different and opposite meanings ascribed to the Hebrew 772 in different verses of the first two chapters. In Ch. i. 5, it is rendered to bless'; in Ch. ii. 5, to curse'. In Ch. i. 11, the writer is doubtful which way to render it; and hence, as though determined to be right, has given it both ways: for the text occurs thus, whether to thy face he will not bless thee? [curse thee]'. In Ch. ii. 10, it is again rendered decidedly bless, in a very correct translation taken from Mr. Parkhurst blessing God and dying.' We are aware that something of the same kind of inconsistency occurs in our established version, yet by no means to so great an extent. There is no reason, however, for its occurring at all. Nothing is so absurd as to suppose that the very same term can ever have been made use of to express ideas so diametrically opposite; nor is the subterfuge that 773 occasionally means "to bid farewell to," xapan, valedicere, and hence to take leave of, or renounce,' in any respect necessary. It denotes" to bless" simply, and in as single a sense as the English term itself. With a little care and dexterity of construction, it might, in all the above passages, have been confined to this sense alone; and in a version boldly asserted to be more clear and satisfactory, more grammatically accurate, more closely expressive of the literal meaning than any other known translation,' it not only might, but ought to have been thus limited and explained.

[ocr errors]

This remark might be extended to a great variety of instances, if we had time. Thus we dip at random into Ch. xxxvi. 26, and find the expression rendered, "beyond our knowledge:' but in the ensuing chapter, V. 5, and we understand not.' The repetition of the phrase has

an intrinsic beauty in the original, and forms an anaphora which is peculiarly characteristic of its diction: and hence, whatever might have been the rendering in the former place, it ought carefully to have been retained in the latter. So, dipping again at raniom, we find in Ch. xiii. 13, 14, the ny, rendered in the first instance whatsoever come,' and in the second, on the chance.'

or עלי מה phrase

• Be silent and I will speak,

Whatsoever come upon me.

[ocr errors]

On the chance, I will take my flesh in my teeth,
And put my soul in my hand.'

The passage, indeed, has not been fully understood by our fair translator; and hence another of its beauties, the very forcible repetition of the pronoun, has been omitted. The original text is as follows,

החרישו ממני וארנרה:

אני ויעבר עלי מה: • על מה אשא בשרי בשני:

ונפשי אשים בכפי: •

The direct and literal version of which is,
Hold ye your peace, for I will speak,

I will-And let what may come upon me,

Let what may-I will carry my flesh in my teeth,
And put my life in my hand.

[ocr errors]

,לריב עמו

6

In Ch. vii. 22, 11, 66 and thou shalt seek me," is erroneous'y rendered, they hall seek me: the word and being omitted. Ch. ix. 3, 1, "to contend," or rather, "to argue with him" is given to contend with us.' This change or confusion of one person for another occurs very frequently. But we have occasionally worse errors to encounter; direct false concords, as plural verbs joined to singular nouns, or masculine nouns to feminine adjectives. Thus, passing forwards once more incidentally, Ch. xxxvii. 10, in the expression the waters run' the author writes a verb singular in the original to a nominative plural. So, in Ch. xxxviii. 20, she first misunderstands as meaning God, and then comples it as a nominative with пpл, a verb in the second person. In this verse, also, the pronou is altogether omitted in the first line of the version, and the two words - in the second. In V. 10 of the next chapter (xxX1X) we have errors of every kind, both of omission and commission. "his rope" or "his band" as it is in our common version, is here rendered a rope', the pronoun his being omitted and rope is then made the nominative case to moan, a verb in the second person singular, will a rope keep him?' In the more correct language of our established lection "canst thou bind,

or keep the UNICORN?"-not bind or keep him :'-for here again we meet with a singular omission; the word, "unicorn or rhinoceros," being tota ly left out, and the pronoun. him substituted for it. At this proneness to omit substantives we have been often astonished. It commences with the very first chapter, where, in V. 5, the word Job is wholly suppressed, and the expressior" for Job said." 798 *, is rendered with the verb alone, for he said.'

We are far from inclining to be severe upon these sorts of blemishes. We are ready to ascribe them to inattention, if not to rapidity of composition alone; and to regard them as maculæ quas incuria fudit, and which, the fair writer intended to have corrected, upon a subsequent revision of her text. They sufficiently prove, however, that her text never did receive such revision; and consequently that, (although in spite of these blemishes it possesses a large portion of general merit) it is in no respect intitled to the praise of unrivalled accuracy, and adherence to the literal meaning of the original, which the very respectable editor has so lavishly passed upon it.

Let us, however, take a passage of some length, that the beauties of the version, as well as the defects, may appear to full advantage The following is a part of the sublime and admirably descriptive speech of Elihu: Ch. xxxvi. 26¬ Ch. xxxvii 13.

26 Behold! GOD is great, beyond our knowledge;

His years are numerous beyond our search.

27 For he maketh small the drops of water,

They are strained off (for) the rain of his vapour;

28 Which the heavens let fall,

And drop on man abundantly.

29 Also can any understand the spreadings of the clouds ?
The high abodes of his silence.

30 Behold, he spreads on it his light,

And the bottom of the sea is covered (with the
reflected light.)

31 For by them he judgeth the people.

He giveth food in abundance.

32 The light overspreads the vault (of heaven,)

And he commandeth it concerning him that prayeth ;

33 He telleth, concerning him, his thunder

Commissioned with wrath against arrogance.

CHAP. XXXVII.

1 Verily, for this my heart flutters,
And beats beyond its place.

2 Hark! hear the thundering of his voice,.

And the muttering that issues from his mouth. 3 His flash is beneath the whole heaven

And his light on the extremities of the earth. 4 After it roars the thunder,

He thunders with the voice of his majesty,

And he will not stay them, for his voice shall be heard.

5 GOD thunders with his voice;

He doeth mighty wonders, and we understand not.
6 For to the snow he saith, Be on the earth;
And he

pours out the rain, he pours out the showers of
his strength,

7 Sealing up the hand of every man,

That all may know his works.

8 And the wild beast retires to his covert,
And in their dens do they abide.

9 From the black cloud comes the whirlwind,
And from condensed air, ice.

10 From the breath of GoD, the ice gives,
And the waters run wide in the thaw.

11 Also the pure (ether) dissolves the thick vapour,
Its light breaks through the cloud:

12 And they turn round according to his counsels,
To perform all that he commands them on the face of
the earth.

13 Whether he cause it to fall on the sceptre,

Or on his land, or for abundance.' pp. 122—124.

This passage contains great elegance and simplicity of diction. In some parts we prefer it to the established versionbut not generally. It is less regularly correct, and at times far inferior. But that it may be duly appreciated, let us examine it seriatım.

V. 26. The pronounour, not found in the original, is unnecessarily introduced into both lines; and this being omitted, surpassing would be a better word than ‘ beyond.'

V. 27. For. This should have been lo! or behold! is not here an adverb of causation, but of exclamation. The

[ocr errors]

Arabic form is repeatedly used in this sense; and the present poem abounds with this and other Arabisms. It is however a sense, by no means uncommon to as a Hebrew term, not only in the book before us, but especially in the Psalms. They are strained off,' is better than in our established version, "they pour dwn." Dr. Stock has it," they are refined." It refers to the process of vaporization: they throw of would be as correct and more simple than either. For is vapour, should be for his tempest; as 1 is here used

[ocr errors]

in the sense of 18, which is indeed the actual rendering of not less than fifty one of Dr. Kennicott's codices.

V. 28. Which the heavens let fall.' Which,' s, is here an adverb of time, and should be rendered then. in all its senses implies lavishness or profusion. The image correctly given is peculiarly beautiful,-down flow the heavens. And does not occur in the second line: it should be they drop, or rather, pour, &c.

V. 29. This verse is supposed by all the critics to be intractable. Schultens gives it up in despair, and Reiske only attempts to make sense of it by altering the text. Dr. Stock renders it,

"Yea-can any understand the spreadings of the cloud?
"The rattlings of the tabernacle?"

The grand error of all the interpreters consists, in giving to the passage an interrogatory cast, to which it has no pretensions; and in deriving a from 1, " to discern or understand," instead of from 3, "to build up, pile up, heap, multiply." is not exactly expressed by our word cloud: it means rather the web, vapour, or woof of which the cloud is composed-nimbus rather than nubes. This first part of the couplet should therefore, be, But if he heap up the spreadings of his cloudy-woof.

תשאות

שאה instead of from נשה

"noise" in our common version, and "rattlings" in Dr. Stock's, is rendered high abodes' by Miss Smith, from The proper word is tapestry-pictured representations of things. v, observes Reiske very correctly, "est picta, variegata, idea rei."

does אכל

V. 31. For by them.' This should be-lo! or behold, by these things; i.e. these fearful phenomena. The real meaning of the second line has never yet been entered into. not mean food,' but sentence, judgement, decision, from he passeth or giveth sentence amain.

:

V. 32. We have here, and in almost every one of the verses of the ensuing chapter, an instance of the negligence we have already pointed out, of employing indiscriminately the ancient and the modern termination of the third person singular of our verbs; as 'overspreads' in the first line, and commandeth' and pray eth' in the second. The first period is not quite correctly rendered, either in this or our common version; but we have not space to point out every defect. The second period is of far more consequence, and has given much more trouble to the critics. Miss Smith has followed her guide, Mr. Parkhurst, and is hence not personally amenable for her error; though neither here nor in any other place is the smallest acknowledgement given, or reference made, to

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »